No, really -- does anyone who's replied to this sound like they'd be interested in trying the Windows Experience?
Either: 1) You've thrived in the rarified atmosphere of a Unix-oriented workplace, or academia, and are already quite clueful about the pros and cons of Windows; 2) You have managed to stay in the Mac world for the most part, tasted Windows once, vomited, and arranged to never endure it again; or 3) You're something like a consultant, are thoroughly aware of all your platform options, and consistently choose to work with a non-Windows system.
There's one more non-astroturf possibility for the poster, but none of these comments fit the description: 4) You have never read Slashdot in your life, and receive all your technology news directly from Apple and Microsoft. Cross-platform apps are also unknown to you, which is why the idea isn't mentioned anywhere in the post or blog. Adobe makes some powerful stuff, but it's available on Mac, too.
OK, I'll bite. Windows is good for games, and certain engineering tools are only available for Windows, too. But to me, the main thing this exercise is useful for is coming up with good replacements for these "killer apps" that can be used on Linux or a Mac.
Scratch that -- the best, can't-live-without, evangelism-worthy programs for Windows are the drivers.
Good points. What's worrying me lately is that, while Linux is doing a fine job catching up to (and in many cases surpassing) the established OSes, the law hasn't really caught up to Linux.
For example, Ubuntu is pretty much how I'd want it by with the default installation, but it can't play certain proprietary media formats and some other things by default -- the wiki explains this. I know some of this is related to gray-area software that's free as in beer, but not as in speech, but there's a significant part of the computer world that's really restricted by patents and copyright issues. I also expect that, in the interest of diplomacy, more countries are going to start prioritizing intellectual property claims over FOSS. Is it politically shrewd to let Linux get tangled up in ridiculous legal issues? Obviously it's better for the public to have a free, flexible, secure OS available, but -- that hasn't necessarily stopped politicians in the past.
Now, if the media picked up that idea and ran with it, you'd think that would satisfy every reporter's innermost desire to do the world a favor and help the little guy. Clear some FUD off the table, get people interested in what our new trans-Pacific overlords are up to. Events like this are happening all the time, so mass media has every reason to spread the word.
J/K, this project is brilliant. The great thing about an effort like this is that there's no such thing as competing with it: If another group or company puts out a better, cheaper laptop, that's not competition -- that's cooperation.
The biggest problem facing independent distribution is the signal-to-noise ratio. It's easy enough these days to make a movie, CD, app, or any other sort of media and distribute it -- and people are doing that nonstop. On any college campus, there are more artistic events than crowds to attend them. The problem is sorting out the good stuff and delivering it to passive consumers.
Old Media established itself performing that service. Now, it's becoming clear that we don't really need them to do it for us, with mainstream music and Hollywood blockbusters becoming ever more WTF-ish and handy Web apps making the task of finding high-quality independent stuff ever easier. I don't think consumers a whole see these copyrights as being anywhere near as valuable as the corporate owners do. Remember that Netscape used to sell for $40 [didn't check fact at all], videotapes used to sell for aroun $99, and a CD with one good song would sell for $20 (as opposed to $0.99 on iTunes). I'm suggesting that a media copyright isn't a perfect monopoly: As competitive, free and independent media proliferates, the value of a media copyright approaches zero.
Steve Wozniak, the (co)founder of Apple Computers, once remarked that he thought every one would write the software he or she needed, and people would be free of the big software companies forever! While many quality open source applications are available, there are still many software niches where open source alternatives are either nonexistent or lacking compared to a commercial alternative.
It gets better every year. I've found OOo even more effective than MS Office, at a company where everyone else is using MS Office. That's nuts.
When desktop publishing software became affordable, some analysts predicted that every person could have their own magazine; this is not the case.
Yes, the analysts were wrong: Everyone actually has several of their own magazines now. The problem is that media isn't worth what it used be. So media companies struggle to hold onto the most valuable things they have, while consumers see less and less importance in any single item.
True, at least for the first part. In the world of low-budget audio CD recording, after mixing and mastering you'll get one or two "master" copies of your CD. Then you treat that CD like god on a disk and send that specific copy out for replication. What you don't do is burn a few copies for yourself and your friends, give the master to your mom, burn another copy from your copy, shit on it, and send that CD off for pressing.
Point being, CD data still degrades with time and duplication.
I'll take a wild guess, is the poster picturing the US government and ICANN holding the Internet hostage at some point in the future? Then the EU says "F this" and sets up its own system, China takes the cue and sets up a hyper-controlled national network, because why not?, and...
Yes, as the parent suggested, the Internet will find a way. It would be more of a pain to connect to international servers, and a large part of the global Internets (as eerily predicted/mispronounced by GWB) would be invisible without some work on the user's part.
But I don't think we would let it get to that point, anyway.
Actually, there is another way -- remove most of the motivation for bribery.
Filthy, hedonistic greed is certainly one reason donations are so compelling for politicians, but another reason is the huge cost of advertising.
I don't quite have the initiative to look up any hard numbers, but as I understand it, a 30-second TV spot with national distribution can cost millions by itself. Since newspapers and radio have been losing influence for decades, and the Internet is still catching on with the core voting demographic (source: thin air), TV ads are currently the main resource Federal-level candidates have for reaching undecided voters. For this reason, among others, the men-behind-the-curtain in both parties tend to select new potential candidates with plenty of personal wealth already. In the traditional way of campaigning, a candidate with no money is mute until the next big fundraiser.
The Internet makes speech just about free, in both senses of the word, and that makes it possible to at least remove half the motivation for bribery. If you'll allow me to put on my Hat of Naivete +3, I'd say a free, unlimited forum for political speech also makes it possible for an honest candidate or grassroots movement to get started on a shoestring budget, too. I'm not particularly worried about shadowy political entities offering bribes to bloggers for a quick plug -- blogs just don't work the same way as TV -- but the key is keeping speech as open and unhindered as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
No, really -- does anyone who's replied to this sound like they'd be interested in trying the Windows Experience?
Either:
1) You've thrived in the rarified atmosphere of a Unix-oriented workplace, or academia, and are already quite clueful about the pros and cons of Windows;
2) You have managed to stay in the Mac world for the most part, tasted Windows once, vomited, and arranged to never endure it again; or
3) You're something like a consultant, are thoroughly aware of all your platform options, and consistently choose to work with a non-Windows system.
There's one more non-astroturf possibility for the poster, but none of these comments fit the description:
4) You have never read Slashdot in your life, and receive all your technology news directly from Apple and Microsoft. Cross-platform apps are also unknown to you, which is why the idea isn't mentioned anywhere in the post or blog. Adobe makes some powerful stuff, but it's available on Mac, too.
OK, I'll bite. Windows is good for games, and certain engineering tools are only available for Windows, too. But to me, the main thing this exercise is useful for is coming up with good replacements for these "killer apps" that can be used on Linux or a Mac.
Scratch that -- the best, can't-live-without, evangelism-worthy programs for Windows are the drivers.
Good points. What's worrying me lately is that, while Linux is doing a fine job catching up to (and in many cases surpassing) the established OSes, the law hasn't really caught up to Linux.
For example, Ubuntu is pretty much how I'd want it by with the default installation, but it can't play certain proprietary media formats and some other things by default -- the wiki explains this. I know some of this is related to gray-area software that's free as in beer, but not as in speech, but there's a significant part of the computer world that's really restricted by patents and copyright issues. I also expect that, in the interest of diplomacy, more countries are going to start prioritizing intellectual property claims over FOSS. Is it politically shrewd to let Linux get tangled up in ridiculous legal issues? Obviously it's better for the public to have a free, flexible, secure OS available, but -- that hasn't necessarily stopped politicians in the past.
Now, if the media picked up that idea and ran with it, you'd think that would satisfy every reporter's innermost desire to do the world a favor and help the little guy. Clear some FUD off the table, get people interested in what our new trans-Pacific overlords are up to. Events like this are happening all the time, so mass media has every reason to spread the word.
Then... profit!
J/K, this project is brilliant. The great thing about an effort like this is that there's no such thing as competing with it: If another group or company puts out a better, cheaper laptop, that's not competition -- that's cooperation.
The biggest problem facing independent distribution is the signal-to-noise ratio. It's easy enough these days to make a movie, CD, app, or any other sort of media and distribute it -- and people are doing that nonstop. On any college campus, there are more artistic events than crowds to attend them. The problem is sorting out the good stuff and delivering it to passive consumers.
Old Media established itself performing that service. Now, it's becoming clear that we don't really need them to do it for us, with mainstream music and Hollywood blockbusters becoming ever more WTF-ish and handy Web apps making the task of finding high-quality independent stuff ever easier. I don't think consumers a whole see these copyrights as being anywhere near as valuable as the corporate owners do. Remember that Netscape used to sell for $40 [didn't check fact at all], videotapes used to sell for aroun $99, and a CD with one good song would sell for $20 (as opposed to $0.99 on iTunes). I'm suggesting that a media copyright isn't a perfect monopoly: As competitive, free and independent media proliferates, the value of a media copyright approaches zero.
It gets better every year. I've found OOo even more effective than MS Office, at a company where everyone else is using MS Office. That's nuts.
Note the following:
Yes, the analysts were wrong: Everyone actually has several of their own magazines now. The problem is that media isn't worth what it used be. So media companies struggle to hold onto the most valuable things they have, while consumers see less and less importance in any single item.
True, at least for the first part. In the world of low-budget audio CD recording, after mixing and mastering you'll get one or two "master" copies of your CD. Then you treat that CD like god on a disk and send that specific copy out for replication. What you don't do is burn a few copies for yourself and your friends, give the master to your mom, burn another copy from your copy, shit on it, and send that CD off for pressing.
Point being, CD data still degrades with time and duplication.
I'll take a wild guess, is the poster picturing the US government and ICANN holding the Internet hostage at some point in the future? Then the EU says "F this" and sets up its own system, China takes the cue and sets up a hyper-controlled national network, because why not?, and...
Yes, as the parent suggested, the Internet will find a way. It would be more of a pain to connect to international servers, and a large part of the global Internets (as eerily predicted/mispronounced by GWB) would be invisible without some work on the user's part.
But I don't think we would let it get to that point, anyway.
Filthy, hedonistic greed is certainly one reason donations are so compelling for politicians, but another reason is the huge cost of advertising.
I don't quite have the initiative to look up any hard numbers, but as I understand it, a 30-second TV spot with national distribution can cost millions by itself. Since newspapers and radio have been losing influence for decades, and the Internet is still catching on with the core voting demographic (source: thin air), TV ads are currently the main resource Federal-level candidates have for reaching undecided voters. For this reason, among others, the men-behind-the-curtain in both parties tend to select new potential candidates with plenty of personal wealth already. In the traditional way of campaigning, a candidate with no money is mute until the next big fundraiser.
The Internet makes speech just about free, in both senses of the word, and that makes it possible to at least remove half the motivation for bribery. If you'll allow me to put on my Hat of Naivete +3, I'd say a free, unlimited forum for political speech also makes it possible for an honest candidate or grassroots movement to get started on a shoestring budget, too. I'm not particularly worried about shadowy political entities offering bribes to bloggers for a quick plug -- blogs just don't work the same way as TV -- but the key is keeping speech as open and unhindered as possible.